Lets see if I can do this without getting booted off the island.

SVreX wrote: I live in a town that tried to erase its history. The result was significantly deeper racism and division. Albany GA was where the Civil Rights movement began (under Martin Luther King), but had a rocky start. It's where King learned how to do non-violent protest, by failing to do it well. He then went to Birmingham, and the story began that we all know about. I lived in Albany for 10 years before I learned about that past (by visiting the Birmingham Civil Rights Museum). No one here talks about it. "Minorities" constitute 92% of the population. Ask any of them how the town is doing on race relations- not so good. I would suggest that wiping out the memory from the town square is exactly the wrong way to handle it.

Here's a question- why do you think relations got worse?

There's only one side that will get MORE angry when statues are removed. Which is to say- once they lose a mental advantage over the other side (which is what statues like this do), they get angry and take it out on people who are less angry over it.

So it's interesting that 8% of the population dominates race relations that much.

Take the monuments down. Hide the sins. White-wash the history in government run schools. Get rid of the civics classes. Promote a tension between groups to keep them from coming together. Give them drugs to keep them down. Put them away for their minor drug crimes. And... holy E36 M3! Repeat the sins.

American Slavery, Reinvented

Prison Slavery

Bobzilla wrote: A quote from the bigoted, slaver Robert E Lee. "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained." So yeah... people don't know history. What they do know are soundbites that have been force fed to them by a biased media and ignorance. To also say that the civil war and the Confederate States were only about slavery is not only ignorance, but willful ignorance. WE the People lost a lot of civil liberties because of this war.

To me, that's like people claiming that the Civil War was about states rights and things about that.

It was about the economy. And economy that was largely based on forced labor to keep costs down, and profits up. A problem that is constant in the world.

While it sounds nice to say that it wasn't about slavery, it was. The other "issues" can all be traced back to that.

It's also good to note that you quote a single General of the Confederate. There were a lot of other people who wanted to keep making a lot of money from farming on their lands.

Calling Lee a traitor is failing to recognize the Succession as a historical fact. It is kinda akin to being a Holocaust denier.

Lee fought for a different (at that time) legitimate entity. The Confederate States of America.

Lincoln won reelection in 1866 without any votes from the states loyal to the Confederate States of America. They weren't part of the US.

If Lee was a traitor, perhaps Washington was too??

A couple of thoughts before the lock:

You don't see a lot of king george III statues around any more - that was our history too. Don't see a lot of (any) black folk supporting keeping the statues or other symbols of the confederacy.

Lee fought for Virginia. And did so after great personal debate. He just as easily could have been a general for the Union.

There was a much stronger association to the State of one's birth back then.

In reply to alfadriver:

I quoted Lee because it was his statue they were arguing over. Had it been another general I would hve quoted them.

As far as the slavery issue, yes it was PART of the reason. Not the ONLY reason as some here stated.

alfadriver wrote: Here's a question- why do you think relations got worse?

I think race relations in Albany GA today are abysmal because of the ignorance of the racial majority to the historical facts of the Civil Rights Movement, and the part their town played in the matter.

They don't even know it happened.

Would a statue fix it? No. But an education might, and the existence of a statue (along with its appropriate contextualization) can be part of an education.

The discussion has value. Invisibility does not.

In reply to WilD:

Im not sure when I accidentally peed in your wheaties, or why youre coming at me bro. I could care less about anyones moral stance. Left, right, up down...who the berk cares. Rules are rules. I didnt state a case for one side or another. I state the case that intervention from either side was not only illegal, but unacceptable. Your right to free speech is to be upheld by your governing bodies. That includes the right to peaceably display symbolism, especially when you have met the legal requirements to display those symbols in public, which was the case here. Regardless of a persons opinion on what youre saying, provided youre within the bounds of the law, youre allowed to say it, and no one can stop you.

If the local municipality had decided that the statue needed to come down, then no one should be allowed to force them to keep it up. If they had decided to leave it up, then no one should be allowed to forcibly remove it. Welcome to local government folks.

Im saddened by the uptick in protests. Im saddened by the self-promotion to judge and jury, and the perception of the right to enact violent civil disruption "because we say so" thats been adopted by many. Im saddened by the narrow minded hatred and systemic abuse of power that we see so prevalent in todays society. But, you could make that case on either side..."insert group here" into either sentence, and the bill would fit.

Its disgusting.

Bobzilla wrote: As far as the slavery issue, yes it was PART of the reason. Not the ONLY reason as some here stated.

But it was at the core of all the other reasons - cotton trade, economy etc...there are no other reasons that didn't hinge on slavery.

In reply to SVreX:

Had the war gone to the Confederates I might agree, but it did not. I think failed rebellions are generally agreed to be run by traitors. Successful rebellions are what result in legitimate entities.

As far as Lincoln winning without votes from states that are trying to leave the union, idk. I mean, if they weren't engaging in treason they could have voted? Like if they cared, they could have worked within the system, much like that statue destroyers could have gone to city hall?

Washington was a traitor up to the moment the British conceded. Had he lost he would have been hanged for treason, there is no doubt.

Hang together or be hanged separately and all that.

Multiple states listed slavery prominently in their secessions. Southern states were also unhappy with the federal government for allowing "state's rights" to effectively reduce the power of the Fugitive Slave Law. They were pissed some northern states weren't enforcing it and sending escaped slaves back south. So much for it being a black and white case of state's rights.

As for the statues, I'm of mixed opinions. The ones glorifying officers of the Confederacy should come down, IMHO. The ones (if there are any) memorializing the soldiers killed in the war are fine by me. The masses will generally have some sympathy from me, as those in power(on any side) tend to be the ones to create more division, in order to increase or hold onto power or profit.

Having statues envokes support or reverence. Having them on tax payer funded land, near buildings that house the very government they railed against, in a country that they fought to leave, makes no sense. Wars are fought over deep divisions, and I can't think of a single other situation where the losers of a war would be celebrated and honored by the winners in such official capacity. These artifacts belong in museums, not lording over citizens these men fought to oppress.

In reply to monknomo:

I hear you, but Washington rebelled under the rule of King George. The Southern States succeeded, and Lee fought FOR them.

There is a reason Southerners sometimes call it the "War of Northern Aggresion". In many ways, it was an invasion, a hostile takeover.

I think it is less accurate to call Lee a traitor than to call him an enemy loyalist.

In reply to 4cylndrfury: Bro? LOL! Anyway, I don't mean to come at you, though I admit I find your "rules are rules" position somewhat frustrating in the context of hate groups. But, you are correct that it is their right to protest and I do not dispute that.

Bobzilla wrote: To also say that the civil war and the Confederate States were only about slavery is not only ignorance, but willful ignorance. WE the People lost a lot of civil liberties because of this war.

This is the current revision of revisionist history. I only buy a small part of it, and that just barely.

Yes, this was (in the abstract) a States' Rights conflict. It was a fight of Federalist vs. Confederate, I agree. But that absolutely pales in significance compared to the lighting rod issue of slavery.

Would the Confederacy have fought so bitterly if their very economic system wasn't at stake? Would the North have spent the lives and resources they did over a lesser issue than slavery? It's highly disingenuous to claim this is actually a States' Rights issue masquerading as something else.

You say "WE the People lost a lot of civil liberties because of this war." Well guess what? A substantial portion of WE the People got their first minuscule taste of civil liberties because of that war.

In reply to SVreX:

No, he is a traitor. He was part of a union and wanted to break it up. Same thing if Texas wanted to leave the country today. We wouldn't stand for it and it they tried to do it by force, we wouldn't immortalize the leaders afterwards.

These statues to me seem like participation trophies for coming in 2nd place out of two. They are not something that you brag about, keep them to your selves.

In reply to Duke:

Very good post.

I think it is also important to back up the history a little further. Prior to the Civil War, Southern representation was thwarted in Congress by Northern industrialized states. There truly was an aspect of lack of representation for the South.

It was a conflict between industrialized states and agrarian states. It was a conflict of political power. And it was an economic conflict (which was also a slavery conflict)

I am a Northerner. I would have an easier time fully supporting the North's "position" on slavery if documents like the Emancipation Proclamation treated slavery evenly across all states. It doesn't- it provided opportunity for advancement for Southern slaves, but no freedoms at all for Northern slaves.

SVreX wrote: Calling Lee a traitor is failing to recognize the Succession as a historical fact. It is kinda akin to being a Holocaust denier. Lee fought for a different (at that time) legitimate entity. The Confederate States of America. Lincoln won reelection in 1866 without any votes from the states loyal to the Confederate States of America. They weren't part of the US. If Lee was a traitor, perhaps Washington was too??

From a British standpoint, of course he was.

The big difference is that his side one our war against the British.

Lee lost, his opponent, who he was previously part of, but left won. So he is a traitor.

I'm not understanding why it's so bad to call Lee a traitor to the United States of America. He was. He wasn't a traitor to the Confederate States, but big deal- the revolution they started failed.

So many of the Confederate was part of the United States Army, but switched sides- which is the core definition of what a traitor is.

Why is it bad to call any Confederate who was originally part of the US army a traitor?

In reply to SVreX:

So withdrawing your congressional representatives, setting up an oppositional government and firing on US troops at Fort Sumter is not a rebellion, and when there is a response it's a hostile takeover? I'm sorry, I don't buy it. There is no country or government in the world that would go along with that.

Take West Virginia - did Virginia recognize West Virginia's right to secede? No, in fact they sued after losing the civil war to get it back. Did Arkansas let Sharp County secede? No.

The southern states tried to argue it both ways, it seems to me. "Only my secession is legitimate"

SVreX wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Here's a question- why do you think relations got worse?

I think race relations in Albany GA today are abysmal because of the ignorance of the racial majority to the historical facts of the Civil Rights Movement, and the part their town played in the matter. They don't even know it happened. Would a statue fix it? No. But an education might, and the existence of a statue (along with its appropriate contextualization) can be part of an education. The discussion has value. Invisibility does not.

I'm curious to hear how you came to that conclusion.

Seems as if what you point out is an issue between generations, not the races. Like "your parents suffered to make sure you had these freedoms, you should appreciate that" kind of thing.

I struggle to see how that effects relations between the two sides.

I don't buy the freedom of speech argument here. This is about a statue on PUBLIC property. You can put any statue, flag, whatever on your personal property, public is a different matter. The town decided to take it down, it should go down.

Let's not forget that these "Confederate" leaders & generals also led and fought for the USA prior to succession. So while individual statues may be glorifying their connection to the Civil War and/or racism, their individual histories need to be considered within the history of the USA. While a bit of a stretch - who would own NOLA now had it not been for Jackson? As far as the statues themselves, well they stand for something - whether each of us feels that's right or wrong - so let them stand somewhere. Whether that's a museum, their original location, or somewhere else accessible by the public.

This will piss off plenty of people, but I really think the US would be in a better place today had the Civil War never occurred. Yes, it may have taken a few more years for slavery to be abolished in all states, but it was certainly heading that way. It would have occurred with much less bloodshed, and I personally believe much less lingering racial concerns.

tuna55 wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: A quote from the bigoted, slaver Robert E Lee. "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained." So yeah... people don't know history. What they do know are soundbites that have been force fed to them by a biased media and ignorance. To also say that the civil war and the Confederate States were only about slavery is not only ignorance, but willful ignorance. WE the People lost a lot of civil liberties because of this war.

Everyone I know who believes that the Civil War was truly about slavery and only slavery makes their point by simply saying it louder and louder. Thanks for bringing that up.

@Bobz: As Duke said, "WE the People" includes the slaves that were freed. Freedom from slavery massively trumps freedom from federal interference or whatever freedoms you claim we lost.

@both: I'll let the Declarations of the Causes of Secession speak for itself:

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

I don't think there's much ambiguity there, guys. Yes there were more causes but the primary motivator was slavery. The south wanted to continue to own human beings and treat them as property and was unwilling to give up that "right."

My take on it is this as a strongly left-leaning libertarian:

How sad is it that a country's people are so morally and ethically deficient that a chunk of concrete is feared to cause civil unrest?

I condemn violence, hatred, racism, and classism. I think that part of history is in the past for a reason, but to assume that removing a statue or a flag will stop it (or that not removing them will cause it) does two things in my mind: 1) it gives zero credit to our human ability to overcome - like child safety locks for a 20-year old, and 2) incites the belief that in order to protect our citizens we have to wash away the bad things and infringe upon a 1st amendment right. Basically, in order to protect our civil rights, we're deciding to remove our civil rights.

This is true pretty much across the board these days. We've had guns for two centuries and we've had the second amendment for two centuries. Now that we have a gun violence problem, liberals are looking into how far they can stretch gun legislation without infringing upon the second amendment, while conservatives are pushing back equally claiming that the amendment is carte blanche to own a tank, a few surface-to-air missiles, and 65 Howitzers.

As far as flags and statues are concerned, its what it means to YOU PERSONALLY as far as I'm concerned. If you like the statue of [insert confederate general here] because it looks good in your town, great. If you like the statue because you're a racist, black-killing, muslim-hating, fag-lynching buttwipe, then we have failed as a society, and the solution is not to take away your toys. The solution is a comprehensive and fundamental change in how we operate. (and don't ask me how to do that because its a 45-page essay)

Here is a story that is part of my personal extended family regarding flags and statues. My uncle's cousin (I called him my great uncle) lived in South Carolina. He had a daughter with a black woman in the late 50s. He was 16, she was 15, they weren't married, couldn't get married, and would likely be stoned to death or hanged if the word got out. They put the child up for adoption. Some couple from Massachusetts adopted her and moved to the UK. My great uncle sent along the daughter's snuggle blanket with the adopting parents; a flannel blanket with the confederate flag printed on it. I have not kept up with that relative. I met her once when I was young, but somewhere in the UK there lives a lesbian, adopted, half-black woman who cherishes a confederate flag because of what it represents to HER. She loves it because it is a symbol of her birthplace, and a symbol that her birth parents loved her enough to protect her from the crap that was going on in SC at the time. To her, I imagine that confederate flag symbolizes love, home, and her blood family. It doesn't represent hate, racism, or white supremacy to her.

While this is an extreme example, I don't think that banning a flag or a statue is the solution any more than banning guns is a solution. It is not the correct solution. Its attacking the rights of the majority in a feeble attempt to strike a blow at the minority, and the worst part is, it won't work. Washing away history won't change the opinions of a white supremacist who is already entrenched in his/her beliefs.

I don't see anyone taking away my right to drink a beer because there is a minority of people out there who get behind the wheel of a car drunk and kill someone. I don't see new laws curbing my right to operate a telephone just because there are a few unscrupulous phone scammers out there.

Having traveled so much in my life, I'm privileged to have seen countless other cultures and see what works and what doesn't. Sadly, the US (despite all of our privilege and wealth) is woefully incapable of the education and enlightenment needed for our citizens to function as a democratic society. We are a society of fear and individualism. We, as individuals, (in general) have zero compassion for others because we lack the empathic ability to even comprehend that our actions (though they may suit ourself) have repercussions for everyone else. Conservatives don't want their taxes going to welfare queens, but can't see that the $64 they pay every year supports millions of people like me who couldn't work when I was mentally unstable. Those individuals only care that they want $64 more dollars per year so that they can evict the handful of welfare queens, but since they have never been mentally ill, their answer is "something something bootstraps get a job." The far left wants to ban guns to stop gun violence, not having any empathy for the fact that billions of guns out there DON'T kill innocent people but do provide a good source for people to harvest organic free-range meat without supporting inhumane feedlot farming... something they should LOVE.

Nobody in the US gives a E36 M3 about anyone but themselves in all the places where they should, but they stick their noses in everyone's business where they shouldn't. And the only difference between the liberals and the conservatives is that one side meddles in things because they think they're being selfless while ignoring the impact on the greater good, and the other side meddles because they think they're being beneficial to the greater good, but it ends up just being selfish because they can't imagine why everyone else isn't exactly like them. The net result is they both end up helping one facet of society while hurting everyone else. One side is too much love for the baby seals while ignoring greater issues, and the other side is bootstrap tough-love for anyone who isn't privileged like them. The truth is, we won't need liberals once our society develops to a point where we intrinsically understand that clubbing baby seals is bad, and we won't need conservatives when we understand that amassing wealth at the expense of others isn't necessary or humane. I like to live like I drive: Merge, go with the flow, don't be a vigilante and cause others to hit their brakes and change the traffic pattern. Just drive and don't berkeley with others. As soon as you spike the brakes because someone is tailgating you, you cause an accident and someone dies because you were trying to protect your needless sense of personal bumper space. Yes, that is a metaphor for life. Not everyone cares about bumpers the same as you.

This is all after ample amounts of time in Mainland Europe, Scandinavia, China, and Central America. Every American should go there before formulating these opinions. And I don't mean take a bus tour with a bunch of Westerners with fanny packs and Nikons, I mean experience the cultures with a backpack and a passport.